HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 125-07City of Palo Alto
City Mana er’s_Renart
12
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
FEBRUARY 5, 2007 CMR: 125:07
1072 TANLAND AVENUE [06-PLN-00101]: REQUEST BY
PROMETHEUS REAL ESTATE GROUP ON BEHALF OF PARK
VILLAGE PENINSULA, LLC FOR A TENTATIVE MAP FOR A
PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL INFILL DEVELOPMENT. THIS MAP IS
REQUIRED IN ORDER TO MERGE EIGHT PARCELS
(APPROXIMATELY 5.7 ACRES) INTO ONE (NOT FOR
CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES). ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PER THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. .ZONE DISTRICT: RM-30/
MEDIUM DENSITY MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff and the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC)recommend the City Council
approve the proposed Tentative Map for 1072 Tanland Avenue to merge eight parcels
(approximately 5.7 acres) into one for a residential infill development, based upon the findings
and conditions contained within the Record of Land Use Action (Attachment A).
COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION
At the punic hearing held on Wednesday, January 10, 2007, the PTC voted unanimously (7-0-0-
0) to accept staff’s recommendation with conditions. No members of the public provided
testimony. Answers to the Commissioners’ emailed questions were provided in staff’s
memorandum to the Commission, dated January 10, 2007 (Attachment B). The key concerns
were related to understanding why the map was needed and what was shown on the map, which
was then revised for the Commission hearing. The PTC staff report and meeting minutes for this
hearing have been provided as Attachments C and D.
A Mitigated Negative Declaration for and the design of three new in-fill buildings housing
twelve apartments were approved by the Director on October 24, 2006, after review by the
Architectural Review Board (ARB) in public hearings on August 17 and October 19, 2006. No
appeals were filed and the Director’s decision became effective in November. No action by the
CMR:125:07 Page 1 of 2
Council is needed on the ARB application; the only action for the Council is to render a decision
on the tentative map.
DISCUSSION
The existing Park Village Apartment Complex provides 151 apartments in nine buildings on a
5.72 acre site. The existing buildings will remain on the site and 12 new apartment units in three
new structures will be added. The purpose of the tentative map is to merge the eight existing
parcels (lots 9 through 16) into one lot (not for condominium purposes) in order to treat the
entire multi-family development as a whole, including allowing for the required floor area ratio
to add twelve additional rental units to the existing multiple family development. The existing
lots are small and would limit additional development of the site to very small additions to each
lot, rather than the approved, cohesive and compatible design for twelve units. The Record of
Land Use Action, provided in Attachment A, describes how the Tentative Map meets the
findings of approval. Pursuant to the Subdivision Map. Act and the City’s Subdivision
Ordinance, the City Council must approve the Tentative Map if the map, the design, and the
improvement are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, the site is physically suitable for the
type and density of development, the subdivision and the proposed improvements are not likely
to cause environmental damage or serious public health problems, and the subdivision or the
proposed improvements will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large.
PREPARED BY:
DEPARTMENT HEAD:
~L ORRAINE WEISS
Contract Planner
/STEVE E’MSLIE
Director of Planning and Community Environment
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:~~’SON
Assistant City Manager
ATTACHMENTS
A.Record of Land Use Action
B.PTC Memorandum dated January 10, 2007, with attachments
C.PTC Staff Report dated January 10, 2007 (without attachments)
D.PTC Meeting Minutes Excerpt dated January 10, 2007
E.Tentative Map (Cduncil Members Only)
COURTESY COPIES:
Prometheus Real Estate Group, Project Applicant
Park Village Peninsula, Property Owner
CMR:125:07 Page 2 of 2
ATTACHMENT A
DRAFT
APPROVAL NO. 2006-?
RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
LAND USE ACTION FOR 1072 TANLAND AVENUE:
TENTATIVE MAP
06-PLN-00101
(PROMETHEUS REAL ESTATE GROUP, APPLICANT)
At its meeting on , 2006, the City Council of the City
of Palo Alto approved the Tentative Map to merge eight parcels
(approx. 5.7 acres) into one (not for condominium purposes), making
the following findings, determination and declarations:
SECTION i. Background. The City Council of the City of
Palo Alto (~City Council") finds, determines, and declares as
follows:
A. Proposed by Prometheus Real Estate Group, this project
involves merging the eight existing parcels into onedevelopable
site, with the existing 151 residential units and the construction
of twelve (12) additional rental dwelling units. The density of
this residential infill development would be 28.6 dwelling units
per acre, under the maximum limitation set by the zone district
(per Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapter 18.24, RM-30
regulations) of 30 dwelling units per acre. THe project results in
the requirement of three (3) Below Market Rate (BMR) units. The
applicant has agreed to rent three of the existing units in the
older buildings in Park Village Apartments as BHR units. Three (3)
separate floor plans are proposed within twelve (12) multi-unit
apartment buildings. The new structures consist of three, four-
plex townhouse buildings containing a total of twelve new
apartments with two unit types and two building types. No building
is proposed taller than the maximum height limit of 29 feet. The
unit types consist of Unit A with two bedrooms and two-and-a-half
bathrooms, and Unit B with three bedrooms and two-and-a-half
bathrooms, and range in size from the smallest at 1,156 s.f. to the
largest at 1,444 s.f., plus parking garages of approximately 477 to
495 square feet for each unit.
B. The Tentative Map plan set includes information on the
existing parcels and onsite conditions (Sheet i); the layout of
existing public streets and walkways, including the various new
buildings, and guest parking spaces (Sheet 2); utility information
and cross-sections of streets and garage driveways (Sheet 3). These
drawings are in compliance with the applicable provisions of the
City’s Subdivision Ordinance. These plans contain all information
and notations.required to be shown on a Tentative Map (per PAMC
Sections 21.12 and 21.13), as well as conform to the design
requirements concerning the creation of lots, streets, walkways,
and similar features (PAMC 21.20). The plan set also conforms to
the approved ARB site plan, provided as reference (see Attachment
H). Because the request involves eight existing parcels which is
defined as a major subdivision resulting in a Tentative Map, this
request cannot be processed administratively through the Director
and requires review by the Commission and City Council approval
(PAMC 21.08.010).
C. ARB approval, granted by the Director on 0ctober 24,
2006, addressed the project’s compliance with zoning and
architectmral regulations. The Tentative Map application has been
reviewed by staff and City departments for compliance with zoning,
subdivision, and other codes and ordinances and received Planning
and TransPortation Commission (Commission) review on December 13,
2006. The Commission recommended approval on a ~-?-?-
?(Commissioners ? )vote.
SECTION 2.Environmental Review. The City as the lead
agency for the Project prepared an Initial Study resulting in a
Mitigated Negative Declaration and determined that the Project
could not have a significant effect on the environment.
In order to fully assess the project’s CEQA compliance, staff
requested and evaluated studies prepared by professional
consultants. The documents provided include: (i) trip generation
estimates-by Fehr & Peers dated July 19,2006; (2) a noise study--by
Charles M. Salter Associates, Inc., dated June 5, 2006; and (4) a
storm water pollution prevention plan-by Underwood & Rosenblum,
Inc. dated June 2006. In addition, the following were submitted
and evaluated: a tree survey--by McClenahan Consulting, LLC, dated
February 18, 2005. All studies reviewed by staff are contained
within the project file for viewing upon request.
The studies provided pertained to trip generation, noise,
air and water quality, and the applicability of constructing
residences on this location in terms of existing soils/geotechnical
conditions and assessment to determine the presence of
environmental/hazardous conditions. Staff has made the following
conclusions in regard to the project’s overall environmental
review:
A minimal increase in vehicle trips will be added to the
existing residential use on site. Twelve additional residential
units would result in an estimate of 6 net new AM peak-hour and
6 net new PM peak-hour trips;
No new noise generating features will be created on site and
2
temporary construction noise impacts would be mitigated through
implementation and compliance with the City of Palo Alto
Municipal Code;
A minimal amount of air pollution would occur due to a minimal
increase of generation of vehicle trips, and no other pollutant
sources would be generated on site;
No significant impacts to storm water or potable water quality
would occur, as only enhancements to each would occur in
construction of twelve additional residential units to an
existing multi-family residential development. The twelve new
units on an existing residential development would not change
the amount of impervious surface area on the site as the
proposal would replace existing areas of impervious materials.
Thus, there is not expected increase in the amount of storm run-
off once the new structures are built;
No significant impacts would result to the site’s natural
resources. Five trees would be removed as a result of the
proposed project. None of these trees are heritage protected
trees. Additional trees, shrubs, and other plant materials would
be installed per the tree inventory/evaluation and preliminary
landscape plan, endorsed by the City’s Managing Arborist and in
compliance with the City’s Tree Technical Manual;
No significant impacts would result from the construction of
this project under the existing soils/geotechnical conditions of
the site. The City’s standard conditions of approval would
ensure that potential impacts on erosion and soil Will not be
significant; and
Residential development would be compatible with onsite
environmental conditions, as no known conditions exist on the
site regarding existing materials that may be deemed harmful or
hazardous.
SECTION 3. Tentative Map Findings.
A legislative body of a city shall deny approval of a Tentative
Map, if it makes any of the following findings (California
Government Code Section 66474):
i. That the proposed map is not consistent with applicable
general and specific plans as specified in Section 65451:
The site does not lie within a specific plan area and
is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
2. That the design or improvement of the proposed
subdivision is not consistent with applicable general and specific
plans :
The map is consistent with Comprehensive Plan policies
related to compatibility with the neighborhood, surrounding
development and adjacent structures of the same land use, and
housing, (land use element and policies L-12, L-13, and L-48), and
housing on underutilized land.
3. That the site is not physically suitable for the type
of development :
The site is located within the Medium Density Hultiple-
Family Residence (RM-30) District, with existing development on
eight individual parcels. This multiple-family residential-infill
project is a suitable use at this location and permissible under
the existing zone district and supported by land use policies
within the Comprehensive Plan, as indicated above in Finding No. 2.
The design promotes harmonious transitions in scale and character
between different designated land uses in that it presently exists
with multiple-family residences and is surrounded by single-family
and multiple-family residences within the neighborhood.
4. That the site is not physically suitable for the
proposed density of development:
The purpose for the Tentative Hap is to merge the eight
existing parcels (not for condominium purposes). In doing so, the
site would remain within the permissible density allowed by the
current RM-30 zone district, which dictates a maximum site density
of 171 total units or 30 dwelling units per acre. As proposed,
this map would enact 163 dwelling units, an amount under the
maximum permissible.
5. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed
improvements are likely to cause substantial environmental damage
or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their
habi tat :
The merger of parcels for twelve additional rental
dwelling units will not cause environmental damage or injure fish,
wildlife, or their habitat, as no habitat for endangered, rare,
threatened, or other sensitive species is present on site. As this
project has been determined to qualify as an In-fill development
project under CEQA section 15332 (detailed.in Section 2 above), all
new development would occur within the areas of pre-existing
development.
6. That the design of the subdivision or type of
improvements is likely to cause serious public health problems:
The merger of parcels for additional residential units
(not condominium units) Will not cause serious public health
problems, as no increases in traffic or noise or significant
effects to air or water quality would result in developing this
site for residential use.
7. That the design of the subdivision or the type of
improvements will conflict with easements, acquired by the public
at large, for access through or use of, property within the
proposed subdivision. In this connection, the governing body may
approve a map if it finds that alternate easements, for access or
for use, will be provided, and that these will be substantially
equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This
subsection shall apply only to easements of record~ or to easements
established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction and no
authority is hereby granted to a legislative body to determine that
the public at large has acquired easements for access through or
use of property within the proposed subdivision.
The proposed twelve new residential units inan existing
infill development will enable all existing units to remain and
will not require any reconfiguration of existing easements.
SECTION 4.Tentaiive Map Approval Granted. Tentative
Map approval is granted by the City Council under Palo Alto
Municipal Code (~PAMCw) Sections 21.13 and 21.20 and the California
Government Code Section 66474, subject to the conditions of
approval in Section 6 of this Record.
SECTION 5.Final Map Approval.
The Final Map submitted for review and approval by the City
Council of the City of Palo Alto shall be in substantial
conformance with the Tentative Map prepared by Underwood &
Rosenblum, Inc. Civil Surveyors, and Planners titled ~Park Village
Tentative Map, consisting of 3 pages, dated and received August 16,
2006, except as modified to incorporate the conditions of approval
in Section 6.
A copy of this map is on file in the Department of Planning
and Community Environment, Current Planning Division.
Within two years of the approval date of the Tentative Map,
the subdivider shall cause the subdivision or any part thereof to
be surveyed, and a Final Map,.as specified in Chapter 21.08, to be
prepared in conformance with the Tentative Map as conditionally
approved, and in compliance with the provisions of the Subdivision
Map Act and PAMC Section 21.16 and submitted to theCity Engineer
(PAMC Section 21.16.010[a]) .
5
SECTION 6.Conditions of Approval.
Department of Planning and Community Environment
Planning Division
i. A Final Map, in conformance with the approved
Tentative Map, all requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance (PAMC
Section 21.16), and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, shall
be filed with the Planning Division and the Public Works
Engineering Division within two years of the Tentative Map approval
date (PAMC 21.13.020[c]).
2. A preliminary copy of restrictive covenants (CC&Rs)
shall be submitted for review at the time of Final Map submittal.
3. The applicant shall adhere to the requirements of the
Below Market Rate (BMR) Letter Agreement, attached to the staff
report. In addition, a formal BMR Agreement, including the
identification of the locations of the BMR units and provisions for
their sale, shall be prepared in a form satisfactory to the City
Attorney, executed by Prometheus Real Estate Group and the City,
and recorded against the property prior to or concurrent with the
recording of the Subdivision Improvement Agreement.
Prior to Submittal of Final Map
Planning Division
4. The Final Map shall be crosschecked for compliance
with the ARB and the Tentative Map approved plans and conditions.
Department of Utilities
5. In consultation with the Departments of Utilities and
Planning and Community Environment, Public Utility Easements for
installation and maintenance of water meters, gas lines, gas
meters, and pad-mounted transformers with associated substructures
shall be designated on the Final Map.
Department of Public Works
Engineering Division
6. Other easements and/or modifications may be necessary
and shall be reflected on the Final Map, as designated by the
Public Works Department.
7. The applicant shall arrange a meeting with Public Works
Engineering, Utilities Engineering, Planning, Fire, and
Transportation Departments after approval of the Tentative Map and
prior to submitting the improvement plans. This meeting shall
determine the scope of all work required and related to offsite
improvements. The improvement plans must be completed and approved
by the City prior to submittal of the Final Map.
Prior to Approval of Final Map
8. Prior to Final Map approval, the applicant shall enter
into a Subdivision Improvement Agreement. This agreement is
required to secure compliance with the conditions of ARB and
Tentative Map approvals and the security of on and offsite
improvements. Improvement plans shall be submitted in relation to
this agreement. No grading or building permits shall be issued
until the Final Hap is recorded with the County of Santa Clara,
Office of the County Clerk-Recorder.
Designation on Improvement Plans
9. All sidewalks, curbs, and gutters bordering the site
shall be removed and replaced in compliance with Public Works
standards. Additional public street improvements shall be made, as
determined by Public Works Engineering. Resurface all streets
frontages of proposed development.
i0. Any unused driveways shall be removed and replaced with
curb and gutter.
ii. Clear visibility at street corners shall be maintained
for an adequate distance, at a minimum height of 2.5 feet above
grade, per City standards°
Prior to Recordation of Final Map
12. This property is in a special flood hazard area and
notation of this shall appear on the recorded Final Map.
13. The subdivider shall post a bond prior to the recording
of the Final Map to.guarantee the completion of the on and offsite
condition(s) of approval. The amount of the bond shall be
determined by the Planning, Utilities, and Public Works
Departments.
7
SECTION 7.Term of Approval.
Tentative Map. All conditions of approval of the~
Tentative Map shall be fulfilled prior to approval of a Final Map
(PAMC Section 21.16.010[c]).
Unless a Final Map is filed, and all conditions of approval
are fulfilled within a two-year period from the date of Tentative
Map approval, or such extension as may be granted, the Tentative
Map shall expire and all proceedings shall terminate. Thereafter,
no Final Map shall be filed without first processing a Tentative
Map (PAMC Section 21.16.010[d]
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:APPROVED:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
Senior Asst. City Attorney
PLANS AND DRAWINGS REFERENCED:
Those plans prepared by BKF Engineers] Surveyors,
titled "Park Village Tentative Map, consisting of
dated July 12, 2006 and received August 16, 2006.
and Planners
three pages,
8
ATTACHMENT B
’ PLANNING &TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION
Memorandum
Date:
To:
From:
Subject:
January 10, 2007
Planning and Transportation Commission
Lorraine Weiss, Contract Planner
1072 Tanland Drive (06-PLN-00101)
Prior to the PTC meeting on December 13, 2006, several questions were raised by
Commissioners regarding the proposed Tentative Map for the 1072 Tanland Drive project. The
following is a list of these questions with each of the questions followed by staff’s response. This
information supplements the original staff report of December 13, 2006, and staff continues to
recommend that the Commission recommend approval of the map to Council, subject to
revisions noted in the response.
1.Why does the applicant need to merge the lots into one?
Lots 9 through 16 are proposed to be merged into one larger parcel in order to treat the entire
multi-family development as a whole, including allowing for the required floor area ratio to add
twelve additional rental units to the existing multiple family development. The design of the
twelve new residential units have been approved by *the Architectural Review Board. The
existing lots are small and would limit additional development of the site to very small additions
to each lot, rather than a cohesive and compatible design for twelve units.
2.Does the one newly created parcel include Tanland Drive running across it?
No, the new parcel does not include Tanland Drive; however, Tanland Drive bisects the
development with the lot merger. Tanland Drive is a dedicated public street and will remain such
through approval of the proposed lot merger. The single lot as proposed is allowed based on
Section 66424 of the Subdivision Map Act, which defines subdivisions as contiguous even if the
lot is separated by roads, streets, utility easements, or railroad rights-of-way. This configuration
is not a lot pattern preferred by the City, but is legal and makes sense for this particular property
to encompass the entire development.
Page 1
3.If so, why doesn’t the map clearly show this?
The map has been revised to better show the lot merger and to delineate Tanland Drive as a
public dedicated street and illustrate that the merged parcel is linked on both sides of Tanland
Drive.
4.Why is one of the lot lines proposed to be eliminated not shown as such on the map?
The map has been revised to show the lot line between the existing lots 9 and 10 to be removed.
5.Does the project meet the requirements for usable open space?
As noted in the Architectural Review Board Staff Report dated August 17, 2006, the project is
consistent with the zoning standards of the RM-30 zone district. The standards include private
and common open space separately and are shown in Attachment G, Zoning Compliance Table,
of that Staff Report. As proposed with the lots merged into one parcel, the project meets the
requirements for usable open space for the development as a whole. An excerpt from the Zoning
Compliance Table is provided below.
Development
Standard
Open Space
- residential private
open space
- residential common
open space
Existing
Condition
19,500 sq. ft.
88,825 sq. ft./36%
Proposed
Project
Total
800 sq. ft. or 67 sq. ft.
per unit
74,852 sq. ft./30%
RM-30 Zone
District
Standard
50 sq. ft. per unit
74,852 sq. ft./30%
6. Record of Land Use Tentative Map Findings #1 and #4 need revision to further explain
the basis for the findings.
The proposed findings are revised as follows. A legislative body of a city shall deny approval of
a Tentative Map, if it makes any of the following findings (California Government Code Section
66474):
1. That the proposed map is not consistent with applicable general and specific
plans as specified in Section 65451:
The site does not lie within a specific plan area and is consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan Land Use designation of Multiple Family Residential, which allows a density range
from 8 to 40 units per acre and 8 to 90 persons per acre, and the added units would result
in 28.5 dwelling units per acre.
Page 2
4.That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development:
The purpose for the Tentative Map is to merge the eight existing parcels (not for
condominium purposes) into one lot. In doing so, the site would remain within the
permissible density allowed by the current RM-30 zone district, which dictates a
maximum site density of 171 total units or 30 dwelling units per acre. As proposed, this
map would accommodate the construction of the previously approved twelve (12)
additional dwelling units for a resulting 163 dwelling units, an amount under the
maximum permissible. The project complies with all other zoning site criteria as well.
Page 3
ATTACHMENT C
PLANNING & TRANSPOR TA TION
DIVISION
STAFF REPORT
TO:
FROM:
AGENDA DATE:
SUBJECT:
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
Lorraine Weiss
Consultant
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Community
Environment
January 10, 2007
1072 Tanland Avenue [06-PLN-00101]: Request by Prometheus Real
Estate Group on behalf of Park Village Peninsula, LLC for a Tentative Map
for a proposed residential infill development. This map is required in order
to merge eight parcels (approx. 5.7 acres) into one (not for condominium
purposes). Environmental Assessment: Mitigated Negative Declaration per
the California Environmental Quality Act. Zone District: RM-30.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staffrequests that the Planning and Transportation Commission (Commission) recommend approval
of the proposed Tentative Map, in order to merge eight parcels (approx. 5.7 acres) into one (not for
condominium purposes), to the City Council, based upon the findings and conditions contained
within the Record of Land Use Action (Attachment A).
SUMMARY OF LAND USE ACTION:
Background information related to the project’s details and history has been included within the
Record of Land Use Action. The Tentative Map drawings, provided as Attachment H, are in general
conformance with the approved architectural review (ARB) plans (Attachment I) and conditions and
comply ~vith the requirements set forth in Chapter 21 (Subdivisions) of the Palo Alto Municipal
Code (PAMC). Code requirements on this application from various City departments have been
incorporated into the draft conditions of approval. The full set of approved ARB plans is available
upon request. The only action required of the Planning and Transportation Commission is a
recommendation on the Tentative Map.
SUMMARY OF KEY ISSUES:
In order to carry out the propoged project, the must applicant must obtain two discretionary permits;
as required by City ordinances: Major architectural review, which is within the purview of the
Director of Planning and Community Environment (Director) with recommendation from the
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Architectural Review Board; and a Tentative Map, which is within the purview of the City Council
with recommendation from the Commission. On October 29, 2006, the Director approved the ARB
application, since the project was found to comply with zoning and architectural regulations. The
Tentative Map application has been reviewed by staff and City departments for compliance with
zoning, subdivision, and other codes and ordinances.
The scope of the Commission’s review for the purposes of this Tentative Map application should be
limited to the "design" and "improvement" of the proposed subdivision. In this context, the terms
"design" and "improvement" are defined in the Subdivision Map Act as follows:
"Design" means: (1) street alignments, grades and widths; (2) drainage and
sanitary facilities and utilities, including alignments and grades thereof; (3)
location and size of all required easements and rights-of-way; (4) fire roads and
firebreaks; (5) lot size and configuration; (6) traffic access; (7) grading; (8) land to
be dedicated for park or recreational purposes; and (9) other specific physical
requirements in the plan and configuration of the entire subdivision that are
necessary to ensure consistency with, or implementation of, the general plan or
any applicable specific plan as required pursuant to Section 66473.5.
(Government Code, section 66418)
(a)"Improvement" refers to any street work and utilities to be installed, or agreed
to be installed, by the subdivider on the land to be used for public or private
streets, highways, ways, and easements, as are necessary for the general use of
the lot owners in the subdivision and local neighborhood traffic and drainage
needs as a condition precedent to the approval and acceptance of the final map
thereof.
(b) "Improvement" also refers to any other specific improvements or types of
improvements, the installation of which, either by the subdivider, by public
agencies, by private utilities, by any other entity approved by the local agency,
or by a combination thereof, is necessary to ensure consistency with, or
implementation of, the general plan or any applicable specific plan.
(Government Code, section 66419)
The design and improvement of the subdivision should be distinguished from the design of the
proposed structures to be located within the subdivision, which has already been approved pursuant
to the City’s ARB process.
The Tentative Map plan set includes information on the existing parcels and on siteconditions
(Sheet 1); .the layout of existing public streets and wallc~cays, including the various new buildings,
and guest parking spaces (Sheet 2); utility information and cross-sections of streets and garage
driveways (Sheet 3). These plans contain all information and notations required to be shown on a
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Tentative Map (per PAMC Sections 21.12 and 21.13), as well as conform to the design requirements
concerning the creation of lots, streets, walkways, and similar features (PAMC 21.20). These plans
contain all information and notations required to be shown on a Tentative Map (per PAMC Sections
21.12 and 21.13), as well as conform to the design requirements concerning the creation of lots,
streets, walkways, and similar features (PAMC 21.20). Because the request involves eight existing
parcels merged into one and is defined as a major subdivision resulting in a Tentative Map, this
request cannot be processed administratively through the Director and requires review by the
Commission and City Council approval (PAMC 21.08.010).
The project’s Below Market Rate Agreement Letter, in accordance with the City’s BMR Program
(Housing Element Program H-36), has been provided (Attachment C). For information purposes
only, the following attachments are also provided:
¯The applicant’s project correspondence (Attachment B), and
¯ARB approval letter and findings, along with the staff report and minutes from the final
Architectural Review board meeting (Attachments D, E, and G).
TIMELINE:
Action:
ARB Application Received:
ARB Application Deemed Complete:
First Formal ARB Hearing:
Final ARB Hearing:
Director’s Approval of ARB Application:
Tentative Map Application Received:
Tentative Map Application Deemed Complete:
P&TC Meeting on Tentative Map:
Action by Council on Vesting Tent. Map:
Date:
April 24, 2006
July 20, 2006
August 17, 2006
October 19, 2006
October 24, 2006
July 19, 2006
August 18, 2006
December 13, 2006
TBD
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
A Negative Declaration, which reviewed the environmental issues as required by the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), was circulated for a 20-day public review period from July 28,
2006 to August 17, 2006. A copy of the environmental document is provided in Attachment F.
ATTACHMENTS:
No
B.
C.
D,
E.
F.
G.
H.
Record of Land Use Action
Applicant’s Project Correspondence
Below Market Rate Agreement Letter
ARB Approval Letter and Findings
ARB Staff Report, dated .August 17, 2006 (w/o attachments)
Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study
ARB Final Hearing Minutes
Tentative Map Plan Set (Commission Members Only)
City of Palo Alto Page 3
COURTESY COPIES:
Susan Millinich, Prometheus Real Estate Group, Project Applicant
Park Village Peninsula, LLC, Property Owner
David Voorhies, Underwood & Rosenblum, Inc.
Prepared by:Lorraine Weiss, Contract Planner
Reviewed by: Amy French, AICP, Manager of Current Planning
Department/Division Head Approval:
Curtis Williams, Assistant Director
City of Palo Alto Page 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
Planning and Transportation Commission
Verbatim Minutes
January 10, 2007
EXCERPT
Attachment D
1072 Tanland Avenue [06-PLN-00101]*: Request by Prometheus Real Estate Group on behalf
of Park Village Peninsula, LLC for a Tentative Map to merge eight parcels (approx. 5.7 acres)
into one (not for condominium purposes) for a proposed residential infill development.
Environmental Assessment: A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared. Zone
District: RM-30.
Mr. Curtis Williams, Assistant Director: Lorraine Weiss will make this presentation and then I
believe the City Attorney has some follow up comments.
Ms. Lorraine Weiss, Contract Planner: Good evening Planning Commission. I will keep my
comments brief but just to let you know the applicant is proposing to merge the eight parcels into
one on a 5.7-acre site in order to add 12 new units to the existing multiple family development.
The Architectural Review Board reviewed the design, for the actual 12 units and it was approved
with conditions.
I would like to indicate that this item was actually scheduled for the December 13 Planning and
Transportation Commission meeting and was postponed because we received questions from
Chair Holman that we wanted to respond to but in addition to that there were some corrections to
the Tentative Map that we wanted to have made. Those corrections have been made at this point
and in front of you tonight at your places is a memo that consolidates some questions that we
received from Chair Holman as well as Commissioner Keller that should respond and answer
those questions. I won’t go through those questions right now.
I do want to indicate though that we did find one additional correction that needs to be made to
the Tentative Map and that is between Lots 14 and 15 there needs to be a note indicating that the
parcel line will be removed. The applicant has provided to me tonight the correction on a revised
Tentative Map and should this project get recommended for approved and be forwarded to the
City Council the City Council will receive the revised map. If you have any questions I would
be happy to answer them.
Chair Holman: Thank you very much. Commissioners, do we have any clarifying questions for
Staff at this time?
Ms. Melissa Tronquet, Deputy City Attorney: I just wanted to add one reminder that the
Commission’s discretion is limited tonight because this only approval of a Tentative Map. The
design of the project is not before you and that essentially means that what you are looking at is
whether the map conforms to the approved design. As Lorraine mentioned it has already been
approved by the HRB and essentially the scope of your review is limited to the items described
on the map and you all have a copy of that.
Page 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
~13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Chair Holman: I believe your intention was it has been approved by the ARB, it had been
approved by the ARB, and so for purposes of design the architectural design has been approved.
The Commission has purview over the design ofttie project on the map. Is that correct?
Ms. Tronquet: The items described on the map that you have not the design of the project itself
that is correct.
Chair Holman: Okay, thank you. Given that I have no cards from the public on this item. Do
Commissioners have any questions? Commissioner Sandas.
Commissioner Sandas: My one quick question, I recall during my tenure on the Commission
that we had another Tentative Map approval and ifI recall correctly there would be a problem if
we didn’t approve it. Does that hold true this evening as well?
Ms. Tronquet: That is true. Essentially it is limited to the findings in the document that you
have. Anything that goes beyond that it is limited scope so it would be a problem.
Chair Holman: Other Commissioners? Commissioner Keller.
Commissioner Keller: I would just like to express a concern that it appears that for the BMR
units, I realize that may or may not be part of the Tentative Map discussion, I think it is not but I
would just like to express a concern that it looks like the square footage of the dwelling units was
used for the three BMR units as opposed to consideration of the fact that these have private
garages. I do not think that the private garages were taken into account in terms of the three
BMR units. If they had been taken into account I think there would be four BMR units. So that
is a concern that I have in terms of that equation that took place.
Chair Holman: Other Commissioners? Commissioner Burt.
Commissioner Burt: If I could just ask Staff one final clarification in terms of our purview. The
first finding requires that the proposed map is not consistent, this would be a basis for denial,
with applicable general and specific p!ans as specified in Section 65451. We don’t have that.
That is the California State Code Section, correct?
Ms. Tronquet: Yes, the government code.
Commissioner Burr: Can you briefly summarize the scope of in what way our general plan
conformance is part of our purview tonight and in what it is not? What are the boundaries of that
particular section?
Mr. Williams: I think the boundaries of that are if the subdivision layout in some way is
inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan then there could be a basis for denial of it. I think as
indicated in the staff Report the land use designation and densities and such are consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan but if there were something about the layout or not having appropriate
circulation or something like that that is indicated in the Comprehensive Plan then that could be a
Page 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
basis. We don’t have a specific plan that deals with this area but the Comp Plan would still
apply.
Commissioner Burt: Thank you.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Garber.
Commissioner Garber: My questions were answered primarily in our previously hearing.
However, I did want to ask I believe this is outside of the area of the, it is not even being called
an area plan at the moment, but the study area that is further to the south, is that correct? That
was essentially adjacent to ....
Mr. Williams: The East Meadow, Fabian Way area.
Commissioner Garber: Yes. This is outside of that area?
Mr. Williams: Yes.
Commissioner Garber: By a significant amount?
Mr. Williams: It does extend up West Bayshore but yes, several blocks at least.
Commissioner Garber: Thank you.
Chair Holman: Vice-Chair Lippert.
Vice-Chair Lippert: I have a technical question. I did a quick calculation on the area of the lots
and the buildings. I want to make sure that my analysis is correct here. The reason why we are
looking at this is one parcel that is bridging a street, is that the L-shaped parcel piece that we are
malting, the dog leg, and the rectangular portion with the rounded comers in the middle if we
were to take those and separate them out and make those two distinct parcels the middle parcel
couldn’t support the additional FAR nor could it make the necessary open space and that is why
the L-shaped parcel needs to be included as part of that lot line merger.
Ms. Weiss: That is correct.
Chair Holman: Okay. As a part ofthe Staff Report, which I am sure Commissioners did read,
there are changes that have also been made to the findings number one and number four. So !
see no other questions from Commissioners so we could entertain a motion. Commissioner
Garber.
MOTION
Page 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4o
41
42
43
44
45
46
Commissioner Garber: I would move that we accept the Staff’s report specifically that 1072
Tanland Avenue be recommended for approval of the Tentative Map in order to merge the eight
parcels into one.
Chair Holman: Hearing a second? Commissioner Sandas.
SECOND
Commissioner Sandas: Second.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Garber, would you care to speak to your motion?
Commissioner Garber: No, thank you.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Sandas?
Commissioner Sandas: No thanks.
Chair Holman: I have a clarification of the motion potentially. One is would that include I
would presume the addition of the lot line removal between Lots 14 and 15, would that be
correct?
Commissioner Garber: Yes. Would that be included? That is what the Staff is recommending.
Mr. Williams: It will be included, yes.
Commissioner Garber: Do we need to make specific?
Mr. Williams: I don’t think you need to make a specific motion we know that needs to be done.
It is a technical correction we will make.
Commissioner Garber: Thank you.
Chair Holman: Then the second would be if it was the intention of the motion to include the new
findings for number one and number four or use what is in the draft ordinance. What is the
intention of the maker of the motion?
Commissioner Garber: I would intend to use the new ones because it was my assumption that
those are essentially replacing, updating or informing the previous description, is that correct?
Chair Holman: Commissioner Sandas, you agree with that?
Commissioner Sandas: Yes.
Chair Holman: Okay. Any other comments about the motion? Commissioner Keller.
Page 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Commissioner Keller: I assume you mean Tanland Drive and not Tanland Avenue.
Commissioner Garber: Thank you, yes.
MOTION PASSED (7-0)
Chair Holman: Seeing no other hands we can vote on the motion. All those in favor say aye.
(ayes) Opposed? None. So that passes on a seven to zero vote. Thank you Commissioners.
Page 5